Maior Grupo Cntroe

HHS Public Access
Author manuscript
JAMA. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 September 01.
Author Manuscript
Published in final edited form as:

JAMA. 2016 March 22; 315(12): 1240–1249. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.2323.
Effects of Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction vs Cognitive-

Behavioral Therapy and Usual Care on Back Pain and Functional
Limitations among Adults with Chronic Low Back Pain: A
Randomized Clinical Trial
Daniel C. Cherkin, PhD*,
Group Health Research Institute; Departments of Health Services and Family Medicine,
Author Manuscript
University of Washington
Karen J. Sherman, PhD,

Group Health Research Institute; Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington
Benjamin H. Balderson, PhD,

Group Health Research Institute, University of Washington
Andrea J. Cook, PhD,

Group Health Research Institute; Department of Biostatistics, University of Washington
*
Corresponding author. Group Health Research Institute; 1730 Minor Avenue, Suite 1600, Seattle, WA 98101; Cherkin.d@ghc.org;
(206) 287-2875.
Author Manuscript
Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01467843

Author contributions: Dr. Cook had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and
the accuracy of the data analysis.
Study concept and design: Cherkin, Sherman, Balderson, Cook, Turner
Acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of data: Cherkin, Sherman, Balderson, Cook, Anderson, Hawkes, Hansen, Turner
Drafting of the manuscript: Cherkin, Sherman, Balderson, Anderson, Turner
Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Cherkin, Sherman, Balderson, Cook, Anderson, Hawkes, Hansen,
Turner
Statistical analysis: Cook, Anderson
Obtained funding: Cherkin
Administrative, technical, or material support: Cherkin, Sherman, Balderson, Cook, Anderson, Hawkes, Hansen, Turner
Study supervision: Cherkin, Sherman, Balderson, Hawkes, Hansen
Conflicts of interest and financial disclosures: All authors report no conflicts of interest or disclosures.
Important disclaimers: None
Previous presentation: Dr. Cherkin presented a brief summary of the preliminary results at the “Mindfulness & Compassion: The Art
and Science of Contemplative Practice” conference on June 4, 2015 at San Francisco State University.
Author Manuscript
Additional Contributions: We acknowledge the support provided by the following individuals: Kristin Delaney, MPH, Group Health
Research Institute Programmer Analyst, for extracting information from data systems, assisting with the design and development of
data tracking systems, and interim analyses (received salary support from the NCCIH grant); Zoe Bermet, LMP, John Ewing, BFA,
Kevin Filocamo, MA, Melissa Parson, MFA, Margie Wilcox, Group Health Research Institute Research Specialists, for participant
recruitment, tracking, staffing classes, data entry, and interviews (received salary support from the NCCIH grant); Beth Kirlin, BA,
Group Health Research Institute Project Manager, for implementation and oversight of project activities (received salary support from
the NCCIH grant); Katherine Bradley, MD, Group Health Research Institute Medical Advisor, for adverse events review and
oversight; Robert Wellman, MS, Group Health Research Institute Biostatistician, for input on research design and implementation
(received salary support from the NCCIH grant); Michelle Chapdelaine, BA, Natalia Charamand, BA, Group Health Research Institute
Research Support Specialists, for administrative support (received salary support from the NCCIH grant); MBSR Instructors: Diane
Hetrick, PT, Rebecca Bohn, MA, Tracy Skaer, PharmD, Vivian Folsom, MSS, LICSW, Carolyn McManus, PT, MS, MA, Timothy
Burnett, Cheryl Cebula, MSW, ACSW, Lorrie Jones, BSN, for teaching the MBSR arm of the intervention (instructors were paid on a
consultancy basis for classes taught); CBT Instructors: Brenda Stoelb, PhD, Sonya Wood, PhD, Geoffrey Soleck, PhD, Leslie Aaron,
PhD, for teaching the CBT arm of the intervention (instructors were paid on a consultancy basis for classes taught); Richard Deyo,
MD, MPH, Medical Consultant, for providing guidance on clinical issues (paid on a consultancy basis).
Cherkin et al. Page 2
Melissa L. Anderson, MS,

Author Manuscript
Rene J. Hawkes, BS,

Kelly E. Hansen, BS, and

Judith A. Turner, PhD

Departments of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences and Rehabilitation Medicine, University of
Washington
Abstract
Importance—Mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) has not been rigorously evaluated
Author Manuscript
for young and middle-aged adults with chronic low back pain.
Objective—To evaluate the effectiveness for chronic low back pain of MBSR versus usual
care (UC) and cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT).
Design, Setting, and Participants—Randomized, interviewer-blind, controlled trial in

integrated healthcare system in Washington State of 342 adults aged 20–70 years with CLBP
enrolled between September 2012 and April 2014 and randomly assigned to MBSR (n = 116),
CBT (n = 113), or UC (n = 113).
Interventions—CBT (training to change pain-related thoughts and behaviors) and MBSR

(training in mindfulness meditation and yoga) were delivered in 8 weekly 2-hour groups. UC
included whatever care participants received.
Author Manuscript
Main Outcomes and Measures—Co-primary outcomes were the percentages of

participants with clinically meaningful (≥30%) improvement from baseline in functional
limitations (modified Roland Disability Questionnaire [RDQ]; range 0 to 23) and in self-reported
back pain bothersomeness (0 to 10 scale) at 26 weeks. Outcomes were also assessed at 4, 8, and 52
weeks.
Results—Among 342 randomized participants (mean age, 49 (range, 20–70); 225 (66%)
women; mean duration of back pain, 7.3 years (range 3 months to 50 years), <60% attended 6 or
more of the 8 sessions, 294 (86.0%) completed the study at 26 weeks and 290 (84.8%) completed
the study 52weeks. In intent-to-treat analyses, at 26 weeks, the percentage of participants with
clinically meaningful improvement on the RDQ was higher for MBSR (61%) and CBT (58%) than
for UC (44%) (overall P = 0.04; MBSR versus UC: RR [95% CI] = 1.37 [1.06 to 1.77]; MBSR
versus CBT: 0.95 [0.77 to 1.18]; CBT versus UC: 1.31 [1.01 to 1.69]. The percentage of
Author Manuscript
participants with clinically meaningful improvement in pain bothersomeness was 44% in MBSR
and 45% in CBT, versus 27% in UC (overall P = 0.01; MBSR versus UC: 1.64 [1.15 to 2.34];
MBSR versus CBT: 1.03 [0.78 to 1.36]; CBT versus UC: 1.69 [1.18 to 2.41]). Findings for MBSR
persisted with little change at 52 weeks for both primary outcomes.
Conclusions and Relevance—Among adults with chronic low back pain, treatment with
MBSR and CBT, compared with UC, resulted in greater improvement in back pain and functional

limitations at 26 weeks, with no significant differences in outcomes between MBSR and CBT.
Author Manuscript
These findings suggest that MBSR may be an effective treatment option for patients with chronic
low back pain.
Low back pain is a leading cause of disability in the U.S. [1]. Despite numerous treatment
options and greatly increased medical care resources devoted to this problem, the functional
status of persons with back pain in the U.S. has deteriorated [2, 3]. There is need for
treatments with demonstrated effectiveness that are low-risk and have potential for
widespread availability.
Psychosocial factors play important roles in pain and associated physical and psychosocial
disability [4]. In fact, 4 of the 8 non-pharmacologic treatments recommended for persistent
back pain include “mind-body” components [4]. One of these, cognitive-behavioral therapy
(CBT), has demonstrated effectiveness for various chronic pain conditions [5–8] and is
Author Manuscript
widely recommended for patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP). However, patient
access to CBT is limited. Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) [9], another “mind-
body” approach, focuses on increasing awareness and acceptance of moment-to-moment
experiences, including physical discomfort and difficult emotions. MBSR is becoming
increasingly popular and available in the U.S. Thus, if demonstrated beneficial for CLBP,
MBSR could offer another psychosocial treatment option for the large number of Americans
with this condition. MBSR and other mindfulness-based interventions have been found
helpful for a range of conditions, including chronic pain [10–12]. However, only one large
randomized clinical trial (RCT) has evaluated MBSR for CLBP [13], and that trial was
limited to older adults.
This RCT compared MBSR with CBT and usual care (UC). We hypothesized that adults
Author Manuscript
with CLBP randomized to MBSR would show greater short- and long-term improvement in
back pain-related functional limitations, back pain bothersomeness, and other outcomes, as
compared with those randomized to UC. We also hypothesized that MBSR would be
superior to CBT because it includes yoga, which has been found effective for CLBP [14].
METHODS
Study Design, Setting, and Participants
We previously published the Mind-Body Approaches to Pain (MAP) trial protocol [15]. The
primary source of participants was Group Health (GH), a large integrated healthcare system
in Washington State. Letters describing the trial and inviting participation were mailed to
GH members who met the electronic medical record (EMR) inclusion/exclusion criteria, and
to random samples of residents in communities served by GH. Individuals who responded to
Author Manuscript
the invitations were screened and enrolled by telephone (Figure 1). Potential participants
were told that they would be randomized to one of “two different widely-used pain self-
management programs that have been found helpful for reducing pain and making it easier
to carry out daily activities” or to continued usual care plus $50. Those assigned to MBSR or
CBT were not informed of their treatment allocation until they attended the first session. We
recruited participants from 6 cities in 10 separate waves.

We recruited individuals 20 to 70 years of age with non-specific low back pain persisting at
Author Manuscript
least 3 months. Persons with back pain associated with a specific diagnosis (e.g., spinal
stenosis), with compensation or litigation issues, who would have difficulty participating
(e.g., unable to speak English, unable to attend classes at the scheduled time and location),
or who rated pain bothersomeness <4 and/or pain interference with activities <3 on 0–10
scales were excluded. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were assessed using EMR data for the
previous year (for GH enrollees) and screening interviews. Participants were enrolled
between September 2012 and April 2014. Due to slow enrollment, after 99 participants were
enrolled, we stopped excluding persons 64–70 years old, GH members without recent visits
for back pain, and patients with sciatica. The trial protocol was approved by the GH Human
Subjects Review Committee. All participants gave informed consent.
Randomization
Author Manuscript
Immediately after providing consent and completing the baseline assessment, participants
were randomized in equal proportions to MBSR, CBT, or UC. Randomization was stratified
by the baseline score (≤12 versus ≥13, 0–23 scale) of one of the primary outcome measures,
the modified Roland Disability Questionnaire (RDQ) [16]. Participants were randomized
within these strata in blocks of 3, 6, or 9. The stratified randomization sequence was
generated by the study biostatistician using R statistical software [17], and the sequence was
stored in the study recruitment database and concealed from study staff until randomization.
Interventions
All participants received any medical care they would normally receive. Those randomized
to UC received $50 but no MBSR training or CBT as part of the study and were free to seek
whatever treatment, if any, they desired.
Author Manuscript
The interventions were comparable in format (group), duration (2 hours/week for 8 weeks,
although the MBSR program also included an optional 6-hour retreat), frequency (weekly),
and number of participants per group [See reference 15 for intervention details]. Each
intervention was delivered according to a manualized protocol in which all instructors were
trained. Participants in both interventions were given workbooks, audio CDs, and
instructions for home practice (e.g., meditation, body scan, and yoga in MBSR; relaxation
and imagery in CBT). MBSR was delivered by 8 instructors with 5 to 29 years of MBSR
experience. Six of the instructors had received training from the Center for Mindfulness at
the University of Massachusetts Medical School. CBT was delivered by 4 licensed Ph.D.-
level psychologists experienced in group and individual CBT for chronic pain. Checklists of
treatment protocol components were completed by a research assistant at each session and
reviewed weekly by a study investigator to ensure all treatment components were delivered.
Author Manuscript
In addition, sessions were audio-recorded and a study investigator monitored instructors’

adherence to the protocol in person or via audio-recording for at least one session per group.
MBSR was modelled closely after the original MBSR program [9], with adaptation of the
2009 MBSR instructor’s manual [18] by a senior MBSR instructor. The MBSR program
does not focus specifically on a particular condition such as pain. All classes included
didactic content and mindfulness practice (body scan, yoga, meditation [attention to

thoughts, emotions, and sensations in the present moment without trying to change them,
Author Manuscript
sitting meditation with awareness of breathing, walking meditation]). The CBT protocol
included CBT techniques most commonly applied and studied for CLBP [8, 19–22]. The
intervention included (1) education about chronic pain, relationships between thoughts and
emotional and physical reactions, sleep hygiene, relapse prevention, and maintenance of
gains; and (2) instruction and practice in changing dysfunctional thoughts, setting and
working towards behavioral goals, relaxation skills (abdominal breathing, progressive
muscle relaxation, guided imagery), activity pacing, and pain coping strategies. Between-
session activities included reading chapters of The Pain Survival Guide [21]. Mindfulness,
meditation, and yoga techniques were proscribed in CBT; methods to challenge
dysfunctional thoughts were proscribed in MBSR.
Follow-up
Author Manuscript
Trained interviewers masked to treatment group collected data by telephone at baseline

(before randomization) and 4 (mid-treatment), 8 (post-treatment), 26 (primary endpoint),
and 52 weeks post-randomization. Participants were compensated $20 for each interview.
Measures
Sociodemographic and back pain information was obtained at baseline (Table 1). All
primary outcome measures were administered at each time-point; secondary outcomes were
assessed at all time-points except 4 weeks.
Co–primary Outcomes—Back pain-related functional limitation was assessed by the

RDQ [16], modified to 23 (versus the original 24) items and to ask about the past week
rather than today only. Higher scores (range 0–23) indicate greater functional limitation. The
Author Manuscript
original RDQ has demonstrated reliability, validity, and sensitivity to clinical change [23].
Back pain bothersomeness in the past week was measured by a 0–10 scale (0 = “not at all
bothersome,” 10 = “extremely bothersome”). Our primary analyses examined the
percentages of participants with clinically meaningful improvement (≥30% improvement
from baseline) [24] on each measure. Secondary analyses compared the adjusted mean
change from baseline between groups.
Secondary Outcomes—Depressive symptoms were assessed by the Patient Health

Questionnaire-8 (PHQ-8; range, 0–24; higher scores indicate greater severity) [25]. Anxiety
was measured using the 2-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale (GAD-2; range, 0–6;
higher scores indicate greater severity) [26]. Characteristic pain intensity was assessed as the
mean of three 0–10 ratings (current back pain and worst and average back pain in the
previous month; range, 0–10; higher scores indicate greater intensity) from the Graded
Author Manuscript
Chronic Pain Scale [27]. The Patient Global Impression of Change scale [28] asked
participants to rate their improvement in pain on a 7-point scale (“completely gone, much
better, somewhat better, a little better, about the same, a little worse, and much worse”).
Physical and mental general health status were assessed with the 12-item Short-Form Health
Survey (SF-12) (0–100 scale; lower scores indicate poorer health status) [29]. Participants
were also asked about their use of medications and exercise for back pain during the
previous week.

Adverse Experiences—Adverse experiences were identified during intervention

Author Manuscript
sessions and by follow-up interview questions about significant discomfort, pain, or harm
caused by the intervention.
Sample Size
A sample size of 264 participants (88 in each group) was chosen to provide adequate power
to detect meaningful differences between MBSR and CBT and UC at 26 weeks. Sample size
calculations were based on the outcome of clinically meaningful improvement (≥30% from
baseline) on the RDQ [24]. Estimates of clinically meaningful improvement in the
intervention and UC groups were based on unpublished analyses of data from our previous
trial of massage for CLBP in a similar population [30]. This sample size provided adequate
power for both co-primary outcomes. The planned sample size provided 90% power to
detect a 25% difference between MBSR and UC in the proportion with meaningful
Author Manuscript
improvement on the RDQ, and ≥80% power to detect a 20% difference between MBSR and
CBT, assuming 30% of UC participants and 55% of CBT participants showed meaningful
improvement. For meaningful improvement in pain bothersomeness, the planned sample size
provided ≥80% power to detect a 21.8% difference between MBSR and UC, and a 16.7%
difference between MBSR and CBT, assuming 47.5% in UC and 69.3% in CBT showed
meaningful improvement.
Allowing for an 11% loss to follow-up, we planned to recruit 297 participants (99 per
group). Because observed follow-up rates were lower than expected, an additional wave was
recruited. A total of 342 participants were randomized to achieve a target sample size of 264
with complete outcome data at 26 weeks.
Statistical Analysis
Author Manuscript
Following the pre-specified analysis plan [15], differences among the three groups on each
primary outcome were assessed by fitting a regression model that included outcome
measures from all four time-points after baseline (4, 8, 26, and 52 weeks). A separate model
was fit for each co-primary outcome (RDQ and bothersomeness). Indicators for time-point,
randomization group, and the interactions between these variables were included in each
model to estimate intervention effects at each time-point. Models were fit using generalized
estimating equations (GEE) [31], which accounted for possible correlation within
individuals. For binary primary outcomes, we used a modified Poisson regression model
with a log link and robust sandwich variance estimator [32] to estimate relative risks. For
continuous measures, we used linear regression models to estimate mean change from
baseline. Models adjusted for age, sex, education, pain duration (<1 year versus ≥1 year
since experiencing a week without back pain), and the baseline score on the outcome
Author Manuscript
measure. Evaluation of secondary outcomes followed a similar analytic approach, although

models did not include 4-week scores because secondary outcomes were not assessed at 4
weeks.
We evaluated the statistical significance of intervention effects at each time-point separately.

We decided a priori to consider MBSR successful only if group differences were significant
at the 26-week primary endpoint. To protect against multiple comparisons, we used the

Fisher protected least-significant difference approach [33], which requires that pairwise
Author Manuscript
treatment comparisons are made only if the overall omnibus test is statistically significant.
Because our observed follow-up rates differed across intervention groups and were lower
than anticipated (Figure 1), we used an imputation method for non-ignorable nonresponse as
our primary analysis to account for possible non-response bias. The imputation method used
a pattern mixture model framework using a 2-step GEE approach [34]. The first step
estimated the GEE model previously outlined with observed outcome data adjusting for
covariates, but further adjusting for patterns of non-response. We included the following
missing pattern indicator variables: missing one outcome, missing one outcome and assigned
CBT, missing one outcome and assigned MBSR, and missing ≥2 outcomes (no further
interaction with group was included because very few UC participants missed ≥2 follow-up
time-points). The second step estimated the GEE model previously outlined, but included
imputed outcomes from step 1 for those with missing follow-up times. We adjusted the
Author Manuscript
variance estimates to account for using imputed outcome measures for unobserved
outcomes.
All analyses followed an intention-to-treat approach. Participants were included in the

analysis by randomization assignment, regardless of level of intervention participation. All
tests and confidence intervals were 2-sided and statistical significance was defined as a P-
value ≤ 0.05. All analyses were performed using the statistical package R version 3.0.2 [17].
RESULTS
Figure 1 depicts participant flow through the study. Among 1,767 individuals expressing
interest in study participation and screened for eligibility, 342 were enrolled and
randomized. The main reasons for exclusion were inability to attend treatment sessions, pain
Author Manuscript
lasting <3 months, and minimal pain bothersomeness or interference with activities. All but
7 participants were recruited from GH. Almost 90% of participants randomized to MBSR
and CBT attended at least 1 session, but only 51% in MBSR and 57% in CBT attended at
least 6 sessions. Only 26% of those randomized to MBSR attended the 6-hour retreat.
Overall follow-up response rates ranged from 89.2% at 4 weeks to 84.8% at 52 weeks, and
were higher in the UC group.
At baseline, treatment groups were similar in sociodemographic and pain characteristics

except for more women in UC and fewer college graduates in MBSR (Table 1). Over 75%
reported at least one year since a week without back pain and most reported pain on at least
160 of the previous 180 days. The mean RDQ score (11.4) and pain bothersomeness rating
(6.0) indicated moderate levels of severity. Eleven percent reported using opioids for their
Author Manuscript
pain in the past week. Seventeen percent had at least moderate levels of depression (PHQ-8
scores ≥10) and 18% had at least moderate levels of anxiety (GAD-2 scores ≥3).
Co-Primary Outcomes
At the 26-week primary endpoint, the groups differed significantly (P = 0.04) in percent with
clinically meaningful improvement on the RDQ (MBSR 61%, UC 44%, CBT 58%; Table
2a). Participants randomized to MBSR were more likely than those randomized to UC to

show meaningful improvement on the RDQ (RR = 1.37; 95% CI, 1.06–1.77), but did not
Author Manuscript
differ significantly from those randomized to CBT. The overall difference among groups in
clinically meaningful improvement in pain bothersomeness at 26 weeks was also statistically
significant (MBSR 44%, UC 27%, CBT 45%; P = 0.01). Participants randomized to MBSR
were more likely to show meaningful improvement when compared with UC (RR = 1.64;
95% CI, 1.15–2.34), but not when compared with CBT (RR = 1.03; 95% CI, 0.78–1.36).
The significant differences between MBSR and UC, and non-significant differences between
MBSR and CBT, in percent with meaningful function and pain improvement persisted at 52
weeks, with relative risks similar to those at 26 weeks (Table 2a). CBT was superior to UC
for both primary outcomes at 26, but not 52, weeks. Treatment effects were not apparent
before end of treatment (8 weeks). Generally similar results were found when the primary
outcomes were analyzed as continuous variables, although more differences were
statistically significant at 8 weeks and the CBT group improved more than the UC group at
Author Manuscript
52 weeks (Table 2b).
Secondary Outcomes
Mental health outcomes (depression, anxiety, SF-12 Mental Component) differed
significantly across groups at 8 and 26, but not 52, weeks (Table 3). Among these measures
and time-points, participants randomized to MBSR improved more than those randomized to
UC only on the depression and SF-12 Mental Component measures at 8 weeks. Participants
randomized to CBT improved more than those randomized to MBSR on depression at 8
weeks and anxiety at 26 weeks, and more than the UC group at 8 and 26 weeks on all three
measures.
The groups differed significantly in improvement in characteristic pain intensity at all three
time-points, with greater improvement in MBSR and CBT than in UC and no significant
Author Manuscript
difference between MBSR and CBT. No overall differences in treatment effects were
observed for the SF-12 Physical Component score or self-reported use of medications for
back pain. Groups differed at 26 and 52 weeks in self-reported global improvement, with
both the MBSR and CBT groups reporting greater improvement than the UC group, but not
differing significantly from each other.
Adverse experiences
Thirty of the 103 (29%) participants attending at least 1 MBSR session reported an adverse
experience (mostly temporarily increased pain with yoga). Ten of the 100 (10%) participants
who attended at least one CBT session reported an adverse experience (mostly temporarily
increased pain with progressive muscle relaxation). No serious adverse events were reported.
Author Manuscript
DISCUSSION
Among adults with CLBP, both MBSR and CBT resulted in greater improvement in back
pain and functional limitations at 26 and 52 weeks, as compared with UC. There were no
meaningful differences in outcomes between MBSR and CBT. The effects were moderate in
size, which has been typical of evidence-based treatments recommended for CLBP [4].

These benefits are remarkable given that only 51% of those randomized to MBSR and 57%
Author Manuscript
of those randomized to CBT attended ≥6 of the 8 sessions.
Our findings are consistent with the conclusions of a 2011 systematic review [35] that
“acceptance-based” interventions such as MBSR have beneficial effects on the physical and
mental health of patients with chronic pain, comparable to those of CBT. They are only
partially consistent with the only other large RCT of MBSR for CLBP [13], which found
that MBSR, as compared with a time- and attention-matched health education control group,
provided benefits for function at post-treatment (but not at 6-month follow-up) and for
average pain at 6-month follow-up (but not post-treatment). Several differences between our
trial and theirs (which was limited to adults ≥65 years and had a different comparison
condition) could be responsible for differences in findings.
Although our trial lacked a condition controlling for nonspecific effects of instructor
Author Manuscript
attention and group participation, CBT and MBSR have been shown to be more effective
than control and active interventions for pain conditions. In addition to the trial of older
adults with CLBP [14] that found MBSR to be more effective than a health education
control condition, a recent systematic review of CBT for nonspecific low back pain found
CBT to be more effective than guideline-based active treatments in improving pain and
disability at short- and long-term follow-ups [7]. Further research is needed to identify
moderators and mediators of the effects of MBSR on function and pain, evaluate benefits of
MBSR beyond one year, and determine its cost-effectiveness. Research is also needed to
identify reasons for session non-attendance and ways to increase attendance, and to
determine the minimum number of sessions required.
Our finding of increased effectiveness of MBSR at 26–52 weeks relative to post-treatment

Author Manuscript
for both primary outcomes contrasts with findings of our previous studies of acupuncture,
massage, and yoga conducted in the same population as the current trial [30, 36, 37]. In
those studies, treatment effects decreased between the end of treatment (8 to 12 weeks) and
long-term follow-up (26 to 52 weeks). Long-lasting effects of CBT for CLBP have been
reported [7, 38, 39]. This suggests that mind-body treatments such as MBSR and CBT may
provide patients with long-lasting skills effective for managing pain.
There were more differences between CBT and UC than between MBSR and UC on
measures of psychological distress. CBT was superior to MBSR on the depression measure
at 8 weeks, but the mean difference between groups was small. Because our sample was not
very distressed at baseline, further research is needed to compare MBSR to CBT in a more
distressed patient population.
Author Manuscript
Limitations of this study must be acknowledged. Study participants were enrolled in a single
healthcare system and generally highly educated. The generalizability of findings to other
settings and populations is unknown. About 20% of participants randomized to MBSR and
CBT were lost to follow-up. We attempted to correct for bias from missing data in our
analyses by using imputation methods. Finally, the generalizability of our findings to CBT
delivered in an individual rather than group format is unknown; CBT may be more effective
when delivered individually [40]. Study strengths include a large sample with adequate

statistical power to detect clinically meaningful effects, close matching of the MBSR and
Author Manuscript
CBT interventions in format, and long-term follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS
Among adults with chronic low back pain, treatment with MBSR and CBT, compared with
UC, resulted in greater improvement in back pain and functional limitations at 26 weeks,
with no significant differences in outcomes between MBSR and CBT. These findings
suggest that MBSR may be an effective treatment option for patients with chronic low back
pain.
Acknowledgments
Funding/Support: Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Center for Complementary &
Integrative Health of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number R01AT006226. The content is solely
Author Manuscript
the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of
Health.
Role of sponsor: The study funder had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management,
analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; or decision to submit the
manuscript for publication.
References
1. US Burden of Disease Collaborators. The State of US Health, 1990–2010: Burden of Diseases,
Injuries, and Risk Factors. JAMA. 2013; 310(6):591–606. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2013.138051
[PubMed: 23842577]
2. Martin BI, Deyo RA, Mirza SK, et al. Expenditures and health status among adults with back and
neck problems. JAMA. 2008; 299:656–664. A published erratum appears in JAMA 2008;299:2630.
[PubMed: 18270354]
Author Manuscript
3. Mafi JN, McCarthy EP, Davis RB, Landon BE. Worsening trends in the management and treatment
of back Pain. JAMA Intern Med. 2013; 173(17):1573–1581. DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.
2013.8992 [PubMed: 23896698]
4. Chou R, Qaseem A, Snow V, et al. Clinical Efficacy Assessment Subcommittee of the American
College of Physicians; American College of Physicians; American Pain Society Low Back Pain
Guidelines Panel. Diagnosis and treatment of low back pain: a joint clinical practice guideline from
the American College of Physicians and the American Pain Society. Ann Intern Med. 2007;
147:478–491. [PubMed: 17909209]
5. Williams AC, Eccleston C, Morley S. Psychological therapies for the management of chronic pain
(excluding headache) in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012; 11:CD007407. [PubMed:
23152245]
6. Henschke N, Ostelo RW, van Tulder MW, et al. Behavioural treatment for chronic low-back pain.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010; 7:CD002014. [PubMed: 20614428]
7. Richmond H, Hall AM, Copsey B, Hansen Z, Williamson E, Hoxey-Thomas N, Cooper Z, Lamb
SE. The effectiveness of cognitive behavioural treatment for non-specific low back pain: a
Author Manuscript
systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE. 2015; 10(8):e0134192. [PubMed: 26244668]
8. Ehde DM, Dillworth TM, Turner JA. Cognitive-behavioral therapy for individuals with chronic pain:
Efficacy, innovations, and directions for research. Am Psychol. 2014; 69:153–166. [PubMed:
24547801]
9. Kabat-Zinn, J. Full Catastrophe Living: Using the Wisdom of Your Body and Mind to Face Stress,
Pain, and Illness. New York: Random House; 2005.
10. Reinier K, Tibi L, Lipsitz JD. Do mindfulness-based interventions reduce pain intensity? A critical
review of the literature. Pain Med. 2013; 14:230–242. [PubMed: 23240921]

11. Fjorback LO, Arendt M, Ornbøl E, Fink P, Walach H. Mindfulness-based stress reduction and
mindfulness-based cognitive therapy: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Acta
Author Manuscript
Psychiatr Scand. 2011; 124:102–119. [PubMed: 21534932]

12. Cramer H, Haller H, Lauche R, Dobos G. Mindfulness-based stress reduction for low back pain: a
systematic review. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2012; 12:162. [PubMed: 23009599]
13. Morone NE, Greco CM, Moore CG, Rollman BL, Lane B, Morrow LA, Glynn NW, Weiner DK. A
mind-body program for older adults with chronic low back pain: A randomized controlled trial.
JAMA Intern Med. In press.
14. Cramer H, Lauche R, Haller H, Dobos G. A systematic review and meta-analysis of yoga for low
back pain. Clin J Pain. 2013; 29(5):450–60. DOI: 10.1097/AJP.0b013e31825e1492 [PubMed:
23246998]
15. Cherkin DC, Sherman KJ, Balderson BH, et al. Comparison of complementary and alternative
medicine with conventional mind-body therapies for chronic back pain: protocol for the Mind-
body Approaches to Pain (MAP) randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2014; 15:211.doi:
10.1186/1745-6215-15-211 [PubMed: 24906419]
16. Patrick DL, Deyo RA, Atlas SJ, Singer DE, Chapin A, Keller RB. Assessing health-related quality
Author Manuscript
of life in patients with sciatica. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1995; 20:1899–1908. [PubMed: 8560339]
17. R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R
Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2013. http://www.R-project.org/
18. Blacker, M.; Meleo-Meyer, F.; Kabat-Zinn, J.; Santorelli, SF. Stress Reduction Clinic Mindfulness-
Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) Curriculum Guide. Worcester, MA: Center for Mindfulness in
Medicine, Health Care, and Society, Division of Preventive and Behavioral Medicine, Department
of Medicine, University of Massachusetts Medical School; 2009.
19. Turner, JA.; Romano, JM. Cognitive-behavioral therapy for chronic pain. In: Loeser, JD.; Butler,
SH.; Chapman, CR.; Turk, DC., editors. Bonica’s Management of Pain. 3rd. Philadelphia, PA:
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2001. p. 1751-1758.
20. Lamb SE, Hansen Z, Lall R, et al. Back Skills Training Trial investigators: Group cognitive
behavioural treatment for low-back pain in primary care: a randomised controlled trial and cost-
effectiveness analysis. Lancet. 2010; 375:916–923. [PubMed: 20189241]
21. Turk, DC.; Winter, F. The Pain Survival Guide: How to Reclaim Your Life. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association; 2005.
Author Manuscript
22. Otis, JD. Managing Chronic Pain: A Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy Approach (Therapist Guide).
New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2007.
23. Roland M, Fairbank J. The Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and the Oswestry Disability
Questionnaire. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000; 25:3115–3124. A published erratum appears in Spine
(Phila Pa 1976) 2001;26:847. [PubMed: 11124727]
24. Ostelo RW, Deyo RA, Stratford P, et al. Interpreting change scores for pain and functional status in
low back pain: towards international consensus regarding minimal important change. Spine (Phila
Pa 1976). 2008; 33:90–94. [PubMed: 18165753]
25. Kroenke K, Strine TW, Spitzer RL, Williams JB, Berry JT, Mokdad AH. The PHQ-8 as a measure
of current depression in the general population. J Affect Disord. 2009; 114:163–173. [PubMed:
18752852]
26. Skapinakis P. The 2-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale had high sensitivity and specificity
for detecting GAD in primary care. Evid Based Med. 2007; 12:149. [PubMed: 17909240]
27. Von Korff, M. Assessment of Chronic Pain in Epidemiological and Health Services Research. In:
Author Manuscript
Turk, DC.; Melzack, R., editors. Empirical Bases and New Directions in Handbook of Pain
Assessment. 3rd. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2011. p. 455-473.
28. Guy, W.; National Institute of Mental Health (US). Psychopharmacology Research Branch. Early
Clinical Drug Evaluation Program. ECDEU Assessment Manual for Psychopharmacology.
Rockville, MD: US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service,
Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration, National Institute of Mental Health,
Psychopharmacology Research Branch, Division of Extramural Research Programs; 1976. Revised
1976

29. Ware J Jr, Kosinski M, Keller SD. A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and
preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care. 1996; 34:220–233. [PubMed: 8628042]
Author Manuscript
30. Cherkin DC, Sherman KJ, Kahn J, et al. A comparison of the effects of 2 types of massage and
usual care on chronic low back pain: a randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med. 2011; 155:1–
9. [PubMed: 21727288]
31. Liang KY, Zeger SL. Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrika.
1986; 73(1):13–22.
32. Zou G. A modified poisson regression approach to prospective studies with binary data. Am J
Epidemiol. 2004; 159:702–706. [PubMed: 15033648]
33. Levin J, Serlin R, Seaman M. A controlled, powerful multiple-comparison strategy for several
situations. Psychol Bull. 1994; 115:153–159.
34. Wang M, Fitzmaurice GM. A simple imputation method for longitudinal studies with non-
ignorable non-responses. Biom J. 2006; 48:302–318. [PubMed: 16708780]
35. Veehof MM, Oskam MJ, Schreurs KM, Bohlmeijer ET. Acceptance-based interventions for the
treatment of chronic pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Pain. 2011; 152(3):533–42.
DOI: 10.1016/j.pain.2010.11.002 [PubMed: 21251756]
Author Manuscript
36. Cherkin DC, Sherman KJ, Avins AL, et al. A randomized controlled trial comparing acupuncture,
simulated acupuncture, and usual care for chronic low back pain. Arch Intern Med. 2009;
169:858–866. [PubMed: 19433697]
37. Sherman KJ, Cherkin DC, Wellman RD, et al. A randomized trial comparing yoga, stretching, and
a self-care book for chronic low back pain. Arch Intern Med. 2011; 171(22):2019–26. DOI:
10.1001/archinternmed.2011.524 [PubMed: 22025101]
38. Lamb SE, Mistry D, Lall R, et al. Back Skills Training Trial Group. Group cognitive behavioural
interventions for low back pain in primary care: extended follow-up of the Back Skills Training
Trial (ISRCTN54717854). Pain. 2012; 153(2):494–501. DOI: 10.1016/j.pain.2011.11.016
[PubMed: 22226729]
39. Von Korff M, Balderson BH, Saunders K, et al. A trial of an activating intervention for chronic
back pain in primary care and physical therapy settings. Pain. 2005; 113(3):323–30. [PubMed:
15661440]
40. Moreno S, Gili M, Magallón R, et al. Effectiveness of group versus individual cognitive-behavioral
Author Manuscript
therapy in patients with abridged somatization disorder: a randomized controlled trial. Psychosom
Med. 2013; 75(6):600–608. [PubMed: 23788694]
Author Manuscript

Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Figure 1.
Author Manuscript
Flow of Participants through Trial Comparing Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction with

Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy and Usual Care for Chronic Low Back Pain.

Table 1
Baseline Characteristics of Participants by Treatment Groupa

Author Manuscript
All UC MBSR CBT

(n=341) (n=113) (n=116) (n=112)
Sociodemographic characteristics
Age, mean (SD), y 49.3 (12.3) 48.9 (12.5) 50.0 (11.9) 49.1 (12.6)
Female 224 (65.7) 87 (77.0) 71 (61.2) 66 (58.9)
Education
High school or less 26 (7.6) 5 (4.4) 14 (12.1) 7 (6.3)
Some college or vocational school 114 (33.4) 37 (32.7) 41 (35.3) 36 (32.1)
College graduate 201 (58.9) 71 (62.8) 61 (52.6) 69 (61.6)
Race
White 278 (82.5) 88 (80.0) 97 (84.4) 93 (83.0)

Author Manuscript
Asian 13 (3.9) 3 (2.7) 4 (3.5) 6 (5.4)
African-American 11 (3.3) 3 (2.7) 4 (3.5) 4 (3.6)
Other 35 (10.4) 16 (14.6) 10 (8.7) 9 (8.0)
Hispanic 23 (6.8) 8 (7.1) 5 (4.3) 10 (8.9)
Married or living as married 249 (73.0) 79 (69.9) 85 (73.3) 85 (75.9)
Annual family income > $55,000 USD 206 (62.6) 72 (66.1) 66 (58.4) 68 (63.6)
Employed 263 (77.1) 89 (78.8) 87 (75.0) 87 (77.7)
Back pain history and expectations
At least one year since one week without LBP 269 (78.9) 86 (76.1) 93 (80.2) 90 (80.4)
Have had spinal injection for LBP 8 (2.7) 3 (3.1) 3 (3.0) 2 (2.0)
“A lot of pain” currently in body site other than back 100 (29.3) 35 (31.0) 34 (29.3) 31 (27.7)
Author Manuscript
Days of back pain in last 180 days, median (25th–75th percentile) 160 (100–180) 160 (100–180) 170 (115–180) 160 (100–180)
Expect LBP to be much better or gone in 1 year 101 (29.8) 36 (31.9) 34 (29.6) 31 (27.9)
Expectation LBP self-management program will be helpful (0–10),

7.5 (1.9) 7.8 (1.8) 7.6 (2.0) 7.2 (1.8)
mean (SD)
Primary Outcomes
RDQ (modified) (0–23; higher scores indicate worse function), mean
11.4 (4.8) 10.9 (4.8) 11.8 (4.7) 11.5 (5.0)
(SD)
Pain bothersomeness rating (0–10; higher scores indicate greater pain),

6.0 (1.6) 6.0 (1.6) 6.1 (1.6) 6.0 (1.5)
mean (SD)
Secondary Outcomes
Characteristic pain intensity (0–10; higher scores indicate greater pain),

5.9 (1.3) 5.8 (1.3) 6.0 (1.3) 5.8 (1.2)
mean (SD)
Depression (PHQ-8) (0–24; higher scores indicate more depression),

5.6 (4.1) 5.3 (3.8) 5.7 (4.0) 5.7 (4.4)
mean (SD)
Author Manuscript
Anxiety (GAD-2) (0–6; higher scores indicate more anxiety)
mean (SD) 1.4 (1.5) 1.5 (1.3) 1.4 (1.5) 1.4 (1.5)
median (25th–75th percentile) 1 (0–2) 1 (0–2) 1 (0–2) 1 (0–2)
Medication use for LBP in past week

All UC MBSR CBT

(n=341) (n=113) (n=116) (n=112)
Any medication 252 (73.9) 82 (72.6) 85 (73.3) 85 (75.9)
Author Manuscript
Opioids 38 (11.1) 12 (10.6) 14 (12.1) 12 (10.7)
Back-specific exercise, at least 3 days in past week 137 (40.2) 44 (38.9) 48 (41.4) 45 (40.2)
General exercise, at least 3 days in past week 167 (49.0) 53 (46.9) 57 (49.1) 57 (50.9)
SF-12 Physical Component Score (0–100 scale; higher scores indicate

39.1 (7.9) 39.7 (7.6) 38.2 (7.5) 39.4 (8.6)
higher function), mean (SD)
SF-12 Mental Component Score (0–100 scale; higher scores indicate

39.9 (7.9) 39.8 (7.4) 40.6 (8.1) 39.4 (8.2)
higher function), mean (SD)
Abbreviations: UC, usual care; MBSR, Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction; CBT, Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy; y, years; SD, standard
deviation; LBP, low back pain; PHQ-8, Patient Health Questionnaire-8; GAD-2, Generalized Anxiety Disorder-2; SF-12, 12-item Short-Form
Health Survey; USD, United States dollars
a
Data are presented as No. (%) unless otherwise indicated.
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript
Table 2a
Co-Primary Outcomes: Percentage of Participants with Clinically Meaningful Improvement in Chronic Low Back Pain by Treatment Group and Relative
Risks Comparing Treatment Groups (Adjusted Imputed Analyses)a,b
Cherkin et al.
Percentage (95% CI) Relative Risks (95% CI)
UC MBSR CBT Omnibus P-value‡ MBSR-UC CBT-MBSR CBT-UC
Roland Disability Questionnaire (RDQ)

4 weeks 27.3 (20.3, 36.6) 34.5 (26.8, 44.3) 24.7 (18.1, 33.8) 0.23 1.26 (0.86, 1.86) 0.72 (0.48, 1.07) 0.91 (0.59, 1.39)
8 weeks 35.4 (27.6, 45.2) 47.4 (38.9, 57.6) 51.9 (43.6, 61.7) 0.04 1.34 (0.98, 1.84) 1.10 (0.84, 1.42) 1.47 (1.09, 1.98)
26 weeks 44.1 (35.9, 54.2) 60.5 (52.0, 70.3) 57.7 (49.2, 67.6) 0.04 1.37 (1.06, 1.77) 0.95 (0.77, 1.18) 1.31 (1.01, 1.69)
52 weeks 48.6 (40.3, 58.6) 68.6 (60.3, 78.1) 58.8 (50.6, 68.4) 0.01 1.41 (1.13, 1.77) 0.86 (0.70, 1.04) 1.21 (0.95, 1.54)
Pain Bothersomeness
4 weeks 20.6 (14.6, 28.9) 19.1 (13.3, 27.4) 21.7 (15.3, 30.6) 0.88 0.93 (0.56, 1.52) 1.14 (0.69, 1.87) 1.05 (0.65, 1.71)
8 weeks 24.7 (18.1, 33.6) 36.1 (28.3, 46.0) 33.8 (26.5, 43.2) 0.15 1.46 (0.99, 2.16) 0.94 (0.67, 1.32) 1.37 (0.93, 2.02)
26 weeks 26.6 (19.8, 35.9) 43.6 (35.6, 53.3) 44.9 (36.7, 55.1) 0.01 1.64 (1.15, 2.34) 1.03 (0.78, 1.36) 1.69 (1.18, 2.41)
52 weeks 31.0 (23.8, 40.3) 48.5 (40.3, 58.3) 39.6 (31.7, 49.5) 0.02 1.56 (1.14, 2.14) 0.82 (0.62, 1.08) 1.28 (0.91, 1.79)
Abbreviations: UC, usual care; MBSR, Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction; CBT, Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy; CI, confidence interval
‡
Wald P-value. P < 0.05 for bolded pairwise comparisons.
a
Estimates from GEE 2-step imputed model adjusting for baseline outcome score, sex, age, education, and pain duration (<1 year versus ≥1 year since experiencing a week without back pain). Clinically
meaningful improvement was defined as ≥30% improvement from baseline on the measure.
b
N=341 included in the analysis; one randomized participant who did not complete the baseline survey was excluded. Follow-up rates (sample sizes before imputation) at each time point by randomization
group are detailed in Figure 1. In addition, 1 MBSR respondent at 8 weeks, and 1 UC respondent at 26-weeks were missing data for the Pain Bothersomeness outcome.

Page 16
Table 2b
Co-Primary Outcomes: Mean (95% CI) Change in Chronic Low Back Pain by Treatment Group and Mean (95% CI) Differences Between Treatment
Groups (Adjusted Imputed Analyses)a
Cherkin et al.
Mean Change from Baseline Between-Group Differences
Roland Disability Questionnaire (RDQ)

4 weeks −1.28 (−1.91, −0.65) −1.93 (−2.61, −1.25) −1.44 (−2.10, −0.78) 0.37 −0.65 (−1.59, 0.28) 0.49 (−0.46, 1.45) −0.16 (−1.07, 0.76)
8 weeks −1.83 (−2.59, −1.07) −3.40 (−4.22, −2.59) −3.37 (−4.14, −2.60) 0.005 −1.57 (−2.70, −0.45) 0.04 (−1.11, 1.18) −1.54 (−2.61, −0.46)
26 weeks −2.96 (−3.79, −2.14) −4.33 (−5.16, −3.51) −4.38 (−5.3, −3.47) 0.03 −1.37 (−2.55, −0.19) −0.05 (−1.31, 1.21) −1.42 (−2.66, −0.18)
52 weeks −3.43 (−4.33, −2.52) −5.3 (−6.16, −4.43) −4.78 (−5.67, −3.89) 0.01 −1.87 (−3.14, −0.60) 0.51 (−0.75, 1.78) −1.36 (−2.63, −0.08)
Pain Bothersomeness
4 weeks −0.68 (−0.98, −0.38) −0.57 (−0.87, −0.27) −0.79 (−1.13, −0.44) 0.66 0.11 (−0.32, 0.53) −0.21 (−0.67, 0.25) −0.11 (−0.56, 0.35)
8 weeks −0.67 (−1.02, −0.33) −1.40 (−1.71, −1.10) −1.28 (−1.62, −0.94) 0.005 −0.73 (−1.19, −0.27) 0.12 (−0.34, 0.58) −0.61 (−1.09, −0.12)
26 weeks −0.84 (−1.21, −0.46) −1.48 (−1.86, −1.11) −1.56 (−2.02, −1.11) 0.02 −0.64 (−1.18, −0.11) −0.08 (−0.68, 0.51) −0.73 (−1.32, −0.13)
52 weeks −1.10 (−1.48, −0.71) −1.95 (−2.32, −1.59) −1.76 (−2.14, −1.39) 0.005 −0.85 (−1.39, −0.32) 0.19 (−0.33, 0.71) −0.67 (−1.20, −0.13)
Abbreviations: UC, usual care; MBSR, Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction; CBT, Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy; CI, confidence interval.
‡
Wald P-value. P < 0.05 for bolded pairwise comparisons.
a
Estimates from GEE 2-step imputed model adjusting for baseline outcome score, sex, age, education, and pain duration (<1 year versus ≥1 year since experiencing a week without back pain).
b
group are detailed in Figure 1. In addition, 1 MBSR respondent at 8 weeks, and 1 UC respondent at 26-weeks were missing data for the Pain Bothersomeness outcome.

Page 17
Table 3
Secondary Outcomes by Treatment Group and Between-Group Comparisons (Adjusted Imputed Analyses)a,b

Cherkin et al.
Mean Change from Baseline

Outcomes Mean Change Estimates (95% CI) Between-Group Mean Differences
Depression (PHQ-8)
8 weeks −0.12 (−0.74, 0.50) −1.60 (−2.15, −1.05) −2.29 (−2.66, −1.92) <0.001 −1.48 (−2.31, −0.64) −0.69 (−1.35, −0.02) −2.17 (−2.89, −1.45)
26 weeks −0.64 (−1.23, −0.06) −1.32 (−1.81, −0.83) −1.80 (−2.35, −1.26) 0.02 −0.68 (−1.45, 0.09) −0.48 (−1.21, 0.26) −1.16 (−1.95, −0.37)
52 weeks −0.88 (−1.50, −0.27) −1.51 (−2.09, −0.92) −1.72 (−2.28, −1.16) 0.13 −0.62 (−1.48, 0.23) −0.21 (−1.03, 0.61) −0.83 (−1.67, 0.00)
Anxiety (GAD−2)
8 weeks −0.09 (−0.32, 0.13) −0.33 (−0.56, −0.10) −0.51 (−0.69, −0.33) 0.02 −0.24 (−0.56, 0.09) −0.18 (−0.47, 0.11) −0.41 (−0.70, −0.13)
26 weeks 0.02 (−0.24, 0.28) 0.00 (−0.28, 0.28) −0.49 (−0.72, −0.25) 0.005 −0.02 (−0.41, 0.37) −0.49 (−0.85, −0.12) −0.51 (−0.86, −0.16)
52 weeks −0.14 (−0.40, 0.12) −0.15 (−0.40, 0.10) −0.39 (−0.59, −0.18) 0.23 0.00 (−0.37, 0.36) −0.24 (−0.56, 0.08) −0.24 (−0.58, 0.09)
Characteristic pain intensity
8 weeks −0.37 (−0.62, −0.12) −1.00 (−1.28, −0.73) −0.86 (−1.12, −0.59) 0.002 −0.63 (−1.01, −0.26) 0.15 (−0.24, 0.53) −0.49 (−0.84, −0.13)
26 weeks −0.65 (−0.95, −0.35) −1.10 (−1.42, −0.77) −1.15 (−1.44, −0.86) 0.04 −0.45 (−0.89, −0.01) −0.05 (−0.50, 0.39) −0.50 (−0.92, −0.09)
52 weeks −0.79 (−1.10, −0.48) −1.42 (−1.72, −1.12) −1.40 (−1.74, −1.05) 0.007 −0.63 (−1.06, −0.19) 0.02 (−0.44, 0.48) −0.61 (−1.07, −0.14)
SF-12 Physical Component Score
8 weeks 2.21 (1.12, 3.30) 3.69 (2.61, 4.77) 3.24 (2.21, 4.27) 0.16 1.48 (−0.06, 3.02) −0.45 (−1.95, 1.05) 1.03 (−0.48, 2.54)
26 weeks 3.27 (2.09, 4.44) 3.58 (2.15, 5.01) 3.78 (2.56, 5.00) 0.84 0.31 (−1.53, 2.16) 0.20 (−1.69, 2.10) 0.52 (−1.19, 2.22)
52 weeks 2.93 (1.70, 4.16) 3.87 (2.55, 5.19) 3.79 (2.55, 5.03) 0.50 0.94 (−0.86, 2.74) −0.08 (−1.91, 1.75) 0.86 (−0.87, 2.60)
SF-12 Mental Component Score

8 weeks −0.65 (−1.86, 0.55) 1.68 (0.57, 2.79) 1.77 (0.82, 2.72) 0.004 2.33 (0.68, 3.99) 0.09 (−1.37, 1.54) 2.42 (0.87, 3.97)
26 weeks −1.11 (−2.39, 0.17) 0.45 (−0.85, 1.76) 2.13 (0.86, 3.40) 0.002 1.57 (−0.27, 3.40) 1.68 (−0.12, 3.47) 3.24 (1.44, 5.04)
52 weeks 0.75 (−0.58, 2.08) 2.01 (0.74, 3.28) 1.81 (0.59, 3.03) 0.36 1.26 (−0.60, 3.11) −0.19 (−1.95, 1.56) 1.06 (−0.75, 2.88)
Binary Outcomes Percentage (95% CI) Relative Risks (95% CI)
Global Improvement (pain much better or completely gone)

8 weeks 10.8 (6.5, 17.8) 15.6 (10.4, 23.5) 21.9 (15.9, 30.3) 0.06 1.45 (0.76, 2.78) 1.40 (0.84, 2.35) 2.04 (1.12, 3.69)
26 weeks 13.6 (8.6, 21.5) 26.2 (19.3, 35.7) 30.1 (22.7, 39.9) 0.01 1.93 (1.12, 3.32) 1.15 (0.76, 1.73) 2.21 (1.30, 3.76)
52 weeks 18.0 (12.1, 26.7) 30.0 (22.6, 39.8) 31.9 (24.5, 41.6) 0.048 1.67 (1.03, 2.71) 1.06 (0.73, 1.55) 1.78 (1.11, 2.85)
Page 18
Mean Change from Baseline

Outcomes Mean Change Estimates (95% CI) Between-Group Mean Differences
Used medications for LBP in past week
Cherkin et al.
8 weeks 63.3 (55.6, 72.1) 53.4 (45.9, 62.2) 53.2 (46.1, 61.4) 0.09 0.84 (0.70, 1.02) 1.00 (0.82, 1.21) 0.84 (0.70, 1.00)
26 weeks 54.2 (46.2, 63.6) 43.4 (35.9, 52.6) 50.9 (43.4, 59.7) 0.18 0.80 (0.63, 1.02) 1.17 (0.92, 1.49) 0.94 (0.76, 1.16)
52 weeks 52.9 (45.1, 62.0) 46.8 (39.2, 55.9) 42.1 (34.9, 50.9) 0.17 0.89 (0.70, 1.11) 0.90 (0.70, 1.16) 0.80 (0.63, 1.01)
At least 3 days of back exercise in past week
8 weeks 42.3 (34.5, 51.8) 66.3 (58.2, 75.6) 59.1 (51.1, 68.4) 0.001 1.57 (1.23, 2.00) 0.89 (0.74, 1.08) 1.40 (1.09, 1.79)
26 weeks 36.4 (28.4, 46.7) 42.0 (34.3, 51.5) 41.8 (34.1, 51.3) 0.62 1.15 (0.84, 1.59) 0.99 (0.75, 1.32) 1.15 (0.84, 1.58)
52 weeks 35.0 (27.5, 44.5) 51.4 (42.9, 61.5) 41.0 (33.0, 50.9) 0.04 1.47 (1.09, 1.98) 0.80 (0.60, 1.05) 1.17 (0.85, 1.61)
At least 3 days of general exercise in past week
8 weeks 54.0 (45.9, 63.4) 64.4 (57.2, 72.5) 62.5 (55.1, 70.9) 0.20 1.19 (0.98, 1.45) 0.97 (0.82, 1.15) 1.16 (0.95, 1.41)
26 weeks 60.1 (52.0, 69.5) 51.3 (43.7, 60.2) 50.7 (42.7, 60.1) 0.21 0.85 (0.69, 1.05) 0.99 (0.79, 1.24) 0.84 (0.68, 1.05)
52 weeks 56.2 (48.0, 65.7) 62.6 (55.1, 71.1) 52.4 (44.7, 61.5) 0.19 1.11 (0.91, 1.36) 0.84 (0.69, 1.02) 0.93 (0.75, 1.16)
Abbreviations: UC, usual care; MBSR, Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction; CBT, Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy; LBP = low back pain; CI = confidence interval; PHQ-8, Patient Health Questionnaire-8;
GAD-2, Generalized Anxiety Disorder-2
‡
Wald P-value. P<0.05 for bolded pairwise comparisons.
a
Estimates from GEE 2-step imputed model adjusting for baseline outcome score, sex, age, education, and pain duration (<1 year versus ≥1 year since experiencing a week without back pain).
b
group are detailed in Figure 1. In addition, the following number of participants had missing data for secondary outcomes:
Depression, anxiety, pain intensity, global improvement, medication use, and exercise: UC (n=2 at 8-weeks, n=5 at 26-weeks, n=6 at 52-weeks), MBSR (n=3, n=6, n=2 respectively), CBT (n=3, n=5, n=7

respectively);
SF-12 physical and SF-12 mental: UC (n=4, n=5, n=8 respectively), MBSR (n=6, n=8, n=6 respectively), CBT (n=3, n=6, n=7 respectively)
Page 19

Maior Grupo Cntroe

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Maior Grupo Cntroe

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HHS Public Access

Published in final edited form as:

Effects of Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction vs Cognitive-

Karen J. Sherman, PhD,

Benjamin H. Balderson, PhD,

Andrea J. Cook, PhD,

Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01467843

Melissa L. Anderson, MS,

Group Health Research Institute, University of Washington

Rene J. Hawkes, BS,

Kelly E. Hansen, BS, and

Judith A. Turner, PhD

Design, Setting, and Participants—Randomized, interviewer-blind, controlled trial in

Interventions—CBT (training to change pain-related thoughts and behaviors) and MBSR

Main Outcomes and Measures—Co-primary outcomes were the percentages of

JAMA. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 September 01.

JAMA. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 September 01.

In addition, sessions were audio-recorded and a study investigator monitored instructors’

JAMA. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 September 01.

Trained interviewers masked to treatment group collected data by telephone at baseline

Co–primary Outcomes—Back pain-related functional limitation was assessed by the

Secondary Outcomes—Depressive symptoms were assessed by the Patient Health

JAMA. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 September 01.

Adverse Experiences—Adverse experiences were identified during intervention

measure. Evaluation of secondary outcomes followed a similar analytic approach, although

We evaluated the statistical significance of intervention effects at each time-point separately.

JAMA. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 September 01.

All analyses followed an intention-to-treat approach. Participants were included in the

At baseline, treatment groups were similar in sociodemographic and pain characteristics

JAMA. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 September 01.

52 weeks (Table 2b).

JAMA. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 September 01.

of those randomized to CBT attended ≥6 of the 8 sessions.

Our finding of increased effectiveness of MBSR at 26–52 weeks relative to post-treatment

JAMA. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 September 01.

CBT interventions in format, and long-term follow-up.

JAMA. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 September 01.

Psychiatr Scand. 2011; 124:102–119. [PubMed: 21534932]

JAMA. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 September 01.

JAMA. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 September 01.

Flow of Participants through Trial Comparing Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction with

JAMA. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 September 01.

Baseline Characteristics of Participants by Treatment Groupa

All UC MBSR CBT

Female 224 (65.7) 87 (77.0) 71 (61.2) 66 (58.9)

High school or less 26 (7.6) 5 (4.4) 14 (12.1) 7 (6.3)

Some college or vocational school 114 (33.4) 37 (32.7) 41 (35.3) 36 (32.1)

College graduate 201 (58.9) 71 (62.8) 61 (52.6) 69 (61.6)

White 278 (82.5) 88 (80.0) 97 (84.4) 93 (83.0)

Asian 13 (3.9) 3 (2.7) 4 (3.5) 6 (5.4)

African-American 11 (3.3) 3 (2.7) 4 (3.5) 4 (3.6)

Other 35 (10.4) 16 (14.6) 10 (8.7) 9 (8.0)

Hispanic 23 (6.8) 8 (7.1) 5 (4.3) 10 (8.9)

Married or living as married 249 (73.0) 79 (69.9) 85 (73.3) 85 (75.9)

Employed 263 (77.1) 89 (78.8) 87 (75.0) 87 (77.7)

Back pain history and expectations

Expectation LBP self-management program will be helpful (0–10),

Pain bothersomeness rating (0–10; higher scores indicate greater pain),

Characteristic pain intensity (0–10; higher scores indicate greater pain),

Depression (PHQ-8) (0–24; higher scores indicate more depression),

Anxiety (GAD-2) (0–6; higher scores indicate more anxiety)

median (25th–75th percentile) 1 (0–2) 1 (0–2) 1 (0–2) 1 (0–2)